Wednesday, November 29, 2006
|
|
The New Bipartisanship: Bush/Webb Catfight!
|
|
Posted by:
Mary Katharine Ham at
9:19 AM
|
|
The Hil reports on a run-in between Senator-elect Jim Webb of Virginia and Bush:
At a private reception held at the White House with newly elected lawmakers shortly after the election, Bush asked Webb how his son, a Marine lance corporal serving in Iraq, was doing.
Webb responded that he really wanted to see his son brought back home, said a person who heard about the exchange from Webb.
“I didn’t ask you that, I asked how he’s doing,” Bush retorted, according to the source.
Webb confessed that he was so angered by this that he was tempted to slug the commander-in-chief, reported the source, but of course didn’t. It’s safe to say, however, that Bush and Webb won’t be taking any overseas trips together anytime soon.
Grown men acting like babies. Webb took a nice, personal inquiry and turned it political on purpose, but Bush should have responded by saying, "I know. I understand, Jim. We all want them to come home as soon as possible, but we must make sure their job is done. They are fighting for something over there."
Then Webb confesses to wanting to punch the President of the United States? Who does that? A Senator? Nope. "Somebody who wants to get strip-searched by the Secret Service," according to John Noonan, who sent me the story.
Both of them should have brought better manners to the party. There was no reason Bush's inquiry about Webb's son needed to end with Webb wanting to punch the Prez. Doesn't bode well for working together to achieve a victory in Iraq. But that's politics!
Update: Allah has a slightly different account of the incident. He wonders if Webb is preparing to turn on the nutroots, and was giving them a little unproductive angry outburst to keep them happy for a bit. Plus, smutty, smutty penis imagery!
|
|
How classless can you get? He refuses to go through the receiving line and then returns rudeness for kidness. And the lefties complain about President Bush "being divisive"?!?!?!?!?!!!
To quote John Stossel: Give me a Break! |
|
I suggest you read George Will's column on the same incident for a less "plague on both their houses" point of view.
My point was the same as Bull's, though I obviously do him no favors with the Hamophiles in pointing that out.
PHenry--yeah sure, ever READ any of Pat's stuff--such as "forbid it almighty God!"? He'd be censored and censured for language here too! Often was in the Burgesis (or however they spelled it.)
Anyway PH "uncalled for" it was not--unpalitable maybe, uncharitable certainly--certainly unacceptable for you all--but not "uncalled for"--Ham's take on the incident certainly called for SOME "are you nuts!?" response. I refer again to Bull and George who played by the drawing room rules.
As for "different rules of engagement"--really? Is that what Webb thought? Is that what the beltway cocktail circuit thinks? No, as C.S. Lewis points out in Screwtape (parapharse from memory here) "modern evil is advanced in carpeted offices with people with manicured hands properly seconded and minuted." There is more done to sell out MY Country at those dinner parties then in Teheran or Paris!
For this is what it comes down to--as Lewis points out in one of his other essays "every restriction on STYLE is, at bottom, a restriction on the KINDS of things one may say"--in other words WHAT we may talk about. MY Country is at WAR--and I will fight for my kid's survival--ANYWHERE and EVERYWHERE and somebody else's "rules of engagement" be--sent nicely and politely to perdition-there is that more acceptable? There are rabid dogs out to bite my kids and I will not tolerate them in my back yard, or at a dinner party, or wherever they show up, or those who would mollycoddle them for whatever reason in whatever circumstance. To parapharse the great gump "Blank is as Blank does."
I learned when I took my MASTER'S IN DIVINITY from DUKE (that suprise you who were only listening to what you heard NOT what I said??)
that you NEVER NEVER let the other side in an important argument dictate either the terms (Lewis again) or the definitions, or you concede the argument before you start.
So, MK, you have your "rules of engagement" I have mine--I am polite enough to play by your rules when I'm in your living room at your Koffee Klatch--but sometimes such reactions remind me of the parable of the man on the ladder who rejoiced in the enviable positon of being able to spit without being spat upon. You will, by the nature of the rules always have the last word. As the ump "they ain't nothin till you calls em." You have flagged me, and stepped off the penalty, I acknowledge this--play on.
As to biblical oaths and curses--something I know a bit about, I stand by my opinion that Appeasers, of whatever degree in whatever conversation can never sufficiently be wished barred from heaven. That those who invest the greiving with some kind of Moral Invunerability can never sufficiently be consigned to Gehenna.
And that those who draw false moral equivalences not only SHOULD be pigeon holed in Sheol--but indeed should take warning from certain passages in the New Testament. It was the Pharisees who drew false moral equivalences and who called good evil and evil good. It's they who "never took God's name in vain" by watching their language--and yet set aside the Commandment of God in favor of the traditions of men and used their Holy Oaths to cheat their parents.
Could it be that language means less in certain contexts than principle?
I remain committed to MY prinicples--I WILL do all I can, in EVERY circumstance to protect my boys from the Rabid Dogs--those who are not helping me are hindering me. Which puts me in mind of (speaking of "a plague on both their houses") Mercutio and Romeo. Romeo wanted polite conversation with the enemy too--Mercutio reminded him of the real stakes: "I was HURT under YOUR arm!" No, "it's not so wide as a church door" "but it will serve."
Post or remove, I care not, I've written truly, let the chips fall where they will.
By the way, some of today's stuff was BRILLIANT from you Ham--and you got hammered for your language in some of it--sort of a sliding scale based on agendas of the readers n'est ces pas? Or however it's spelled. Anyway YOU did great, this time, for whatever that is worth to you.
the big mick |
|
I love it when Peaceniks turn violent. :D
|
|
|
At least Bush didn't bring up any of Webb's infamous writings. Then we may have seen Webb throw a punch. |
|
I'm glad I came here after you removed what Mick said. There's nothing that bugs me more than seeing or hearing that particular curse.
It's ironic that one of the only true biblical ways to curse is considered such a minor curse now that you can hear it all over TV even when they bleep out other stuff.
In an attempt to get back to the topic, yeah Bush should definitely have handled it better and chosen something else to say in the situation. However Webb was obviously looking for an argument and I doubt Bush could have said anything that would have led them to any sort of normal conversation. |
|
First, MK, thanks for dressing down Big Mick. That was truly uncalled for and hardly relevant.
Bush was being polite by asking about Webbs son, and that politeness was responded to with an insult. I think Bush handled it fairly, he just reiterated that he was inquiring as to the well being of Webbs son, not making a political statement. Webb wants to prove his standing as a leader among Bush Derangement Syndrome sufferers.
I live in VA, and I expect my new senator to embarass me and my state on a regular basis.
|
|
Both of them? WTF? How in the world do you condemn Bush for this incident?
You figured he should have weenied when Webb, a notorious Scot-Irish celebrating bombastic bully elected as a US Senator jumped into Bush's face in response to a civil, caring question?
How feminine of you, and how politically correct of you to peddle that "both are to blame" PC nonsense.
|
|
|
...implies that Webb was aching for a fight. He refused to go through the receiving line or have his picture taken with the President. While the President's retort may have been unnecessary, I don't have a problem with it. In our society, we have adopted the notion that we must go out f our way to not offend people no matter how they behave toward us. The President just gave Webb a dose of his own medicine. |
|
Whatever you think of me, do not EVER say or allude to the word "GD" on my blog again.
Also, chill. It's fairly clear I'm not addressing the War on Terror in the post. I'm addressing an incident at a dinner party. Surely you understand that the rules of engagement are different in these two different theaters.
|
|
So this is my new Senator...Well if he wants to play this game of not respecting the Office of Pres. then he should get some of his own medicine..
So, If I ever see him, I'll say "Hey A..Hole, what do you think of.......
Ed
|
|
|
|